>Beman Dawes wrote:
>>
>> I don't think people were against the idea of solving the problem, but
>> rather there is a need for a unified prefix/suffix header solution such
>> as John is suggesting. Developers need a "canned" solution; they can't >> be asked to code #ifdefs and pragmas for compilers they know nothing >about. >> > >I thought people were against it for reasons of setting up test cases >and such, not because of the implementation.
Well, some of us are trying to get out of doing additional work:-)
>At the time, I assumed it would be a pre-header and post-header for each >compiler supported under boost. In that case, it would be good thing to >get in for the 1.31.0 release if possible. I can supply the options for >Borland but not other compilers.
Perhaps coordinate with John Maddock? He is really our config header expert.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
